VATICAN CITY-Delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church walked out of theological talks with the Vatican over a territorial dispute with another Orthodox church, officials said Thursday.

The Russian Orthodox representatives were incensed that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, headquarters of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, had invited members of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church to attend the meeting in Ravenna, Italy.

The Russian church does not recognize the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, the rival of its own branch in the former Soviet republic, as an autonomous canonical structure. It claims the Estonian church was created by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1996 on the territory of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Orthodox churches are largely autonomous, but Bartholomew is considered "first among equals" of the world's Orthodox patriarchs and directly controls several churches.

A statement from the Russian church said its representative to the Ravenna meeting, Bishop Ilarion, left after he had tried to find a solution in talks with Metropolitan John Zizioulas of the Ecumenical Constantinople Patriarchate, but that "no understanding was reached."

"The Moscow Patriarchate places great importance in the development of theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church," the statement said.

"But at the same time ... the joint participation by delegates of the Moscow Patriarchate and the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church in an official session would mean the implicit recognition by the Moscow Patriarchate of the canonical (nature) of this church structure."

The walkout reflected the politically charged post-Soviet struggle over the Orthodox Christian community in Estonia that pits the Moscow-based church and its leader, Patriarch Alexy II, against Bartholomew.

Rival churches in the small, mostly Lutheran Baltic Sea nation are supported by the Russian Orthodox Church, which claims the whole of the former Soviet Union as its territory and has the largest flock in the Orthodox Christian word, and Bartholomew's Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The dispute has its roots in the 20th Century history of Estonia, occupied during World War II by the Nazis and then the Soviet Union, which controlled it for decades afterward, leaving deep animosity. The Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church was registered in 1993, two years after the country regained independence from Moscow, and became the legal successor of the pre-World War II Estonian Orthodox Church.

The dispute flared in 1996, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate resumed full canonical supervision of the Estonian church, prompting Alexy to announce that his church had severed communion with Bartholomew's. The Russian Orthodox Church restored communion months later after a compromise agreement, but tension persists.

The meeting in Ravenna, scheduled from Oct. 8-15, was the second since the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue resumed in 2006 after breaking off for six years.

Orthodox and Catholic churches have been split since 1054 in large part because of disagreements over the power of the pope. Orthodox churches also accuse the Vatican of seeking converts on traditionally Orthodox territories, particularly in Eastern Europe, charges that Rome denies.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Vatican hoped the dispute between the Orthodox churches would be resolved quickly.

He said the Vatican hoped that "such inter-Orthodox difficulties won't prejudice the official dialogue between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church."

« Last Edit: October 20, 2007, 02:07:31 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Jhn 17:18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. Jhn 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.Jhn 17:20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; Jhn 17:21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.Jhn 17:22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: Jhn 17:23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

Lord have mercy.

Sophia

« Last Edit: October 27, 2007, 01:11:01 PM by Sophia »

Logged

Luk 9: And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. John answered, Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us. But Jesus said to him, Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you.

VATICAN CITY-Delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church walked out of theological talks with the Vatican over a territorial dispute with another Orthodox church, officials said Thursday.

The Russian Orthodox representatives were incensed that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, headquarters of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, had invited members of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church to attend the meeting in Ravenna, Italy.

The Russian church does not recognize the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, the rival of its own branch in the former Soviet republic, as an autonomous canonical structure. It claims the Estonian church was created by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1996 on the territory of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Orthodox churches are largely autonomous, but Bartholomew is considered "first among equals" of the world's Orthodox patriarchs and directly controls several churches.

A statement from the Russian church said its representative to the Ravenna meeting, Bishop Ilarion, left after he had tried to find a solution in talks with Metropolitan John Zizioulas of the Ecumenical Constantinople Patriarchate, but that "no understanding was reached."

"The Moscow Patriarchate places great importance in the development of theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church," the statement said.

"But at the same time ... the joint participation by delegates of the Moscow Patriarchate and the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church in an official session would mean the implicit recognition by the Moscow Patriarchate of the canonical (nature) of this church structure."

The walkout reflected the politically charged post-Soviet struggle over the Orthodox Christian community in Estonia that pits the Moscow-based church and its leader, Patriarch Alexy II, against Bartholomew.

Rival churches in the small, mostly Lutheran Baltic Sea nation are supported by the Russian Orthodox Church, which claims the whole of the former Soviet Union as its territory and has the largest flock in the Orthodox Christian word, and Bartholomew's Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The dispute has its roots in the 20th Century history of Estonia, occupied during World War II by the Nazis and then the Soviet Union, which controlled it for decades afterward, leaving deep animosity. The Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church was registered in 1993, two years after the country regained independence from Moscow, and became the legal successor of the pre-World War II Estonian Orthodox Church.

The dispute flared in 1996, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate resumed full canonical supervision of the Estonian church, prompting Alexy to announce that his church had severed communion with Bartholomew's. The Russian Orthodox Church restored communion months later after a compromise agreement, but tension persists.

The meeting in Ravenna, scheduled from Oct. 8-15, was the second since the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue resumed in 2006 after breaking off for six years.

Orthodox and Catholic churches have been split since 1054 in large part because of disagreements over the power of the pope. Orthodox churches also accuse the Vatican of seeking converts on traditionally Orthodox territories, particularly in Eastern Europe, charges that Rome denies.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Vatican hoped the dispute between the Orthodox churches would be resolved quickly.

He said the Vatican hoped that "such inter-Orthodox difficulties won't prejudice the official dialogue between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church."

I don't know much about this, but I don't see what the big deal is in letting Estonia be autonomous?

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

I don't know much about this, but I don't see what the big deal is in letting Estonia be autonomous?

The Moscow Patriarchate is a political institution of the Russian Federation and nothing more. Allowing Estonia's church to be autonomous would be ceding Russian hegemonic claims in the Baltic and other parts of the former USSR.

The Moscow Patriarchate is a political institution of the Russian Federation and nothing more. Allowing Estonia's church to be autonomous would be ceding Russian hegemonic claims in the Baltic and other parts of the former USSR.

Then I say let Estonia be autonomous!

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

This goes much deeper than political issues. Why is it that the Orthodox faith must split up so much? this can only weaken us. I understand some churches may be autonomous because obviously a Romanian cannot go to a Russia church and understand the liturgy. But for example, the Montenegrin Orthodox Church and Macedonian Orthodox Church movements? purely nationalistic purposes. Kiev Patriarchate? If course this begs the question as to whether an Estonian would understand the liturgy in a ROC, which I doubt. In thatc ase I see a linguistic reason for autonomy. So I think Estonia would have some argument there, but Constantinople cannot simply do this without involving Russia. I;m not in the bestf rame of mind but I'm sure msot of you get my point.

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

This goes much deeper than political issues. Why is it that the Orthodox faith must split up so much? this can only weaken us. I understand some churches may be autonomous because obviously a Romanian cannot go to a Russia church and understand the liturgy. But for example, the Montenegrin Orthodox Church and Macedonian Orthodox Church movements? purely nationalistic purposes. Kiev Patriarchate? If course this begs the question as to whether an Estonian would understand the liturgy in a ROC, which I doubt. In thatc ase I see a linguistic reason for autonomy. So I think Estonia would have some argument there, but Constantinople cannot simply do this without involving Russia. I;m not in the bestf rame of mind but I'm sure msot of you get my point.

I see. Since you already have your little nationalist church, you don't see why anyone else should get theirs.

I agree with Nektarios; Orthodoxy is supposed to be organized along national boundaries (unless you have a totally screwed up situation, as in N. America). Why should the Moscow Patriarchate have jurisdiction in former Soviet Republics such as Georgia, Ukrane, Estonia, Latvia , etc.?

I agree with Nektarios; Orthodoxy is supposed to be organized along national boundaries (unless you have a totally screwed up situation, as in N. America).

I'm not saying anything should be anything. I'm merely pointing out that it is cozy for those in nationalist churches that broke off from Constantinople (i.e in this case Serbia) to denounce others for forming nationalistic churches.

This goes much deeper than political issues. Why is it that the Orthodox faith must split up so much? this can only weaken us. I understand some churches may be autonomous because obviously a Romanian cannot go to a Russia church and understand the liturgy. But for example, the Montenegrin Orthodox Church and Macedonian Orthodox Church movements? purely nationalistic purposes. Kiev Patriarchate? If course this begs the question as to whether an Estonian would understand the liturgy in a ROC, which I doubt. In thatc ase I see a linguistic reason for autonomy. So I think Estonia would have some argument there, but Constantinople cannot simply do this without involving Russia. I;m not in the bestf rame of mind but I'm sure msot of you get my point.

I agree with Nektarios; Orthodoxy is supposed to be organized along national boundaries (unless you have a totally screwed up situation, as in N. America). Why should the Moscow Patriarchate have jurisdiction in former Soviet Republics such as Georgia, Ukrane, Estonia, Latvia , etc.?

Between the Moscow Patriarchate's shenanigans and the OCA's issues, it is an embarrassment to be Russian Orthodox right now (I am in a OCA parish)

No kidding brotha! I feel your sentiments.

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

I agree with Nektarios; Orthodoxy is supposed to be organized along national boundaries (unless you have a totally screwed up situation, as in N. America). Why should the Moscow Patriarchate have jurisdiction in former Soviet Republics such as Georgia, Ukrane, Estonia, Latvia , etc.?

If so, then why not eastern Europe as well?

I think you have to consider the complexity of issues like this, though. For instance, when you say "national boundaries", do you really mean "national", or do you mean "state"? The nation-state is a very recent development, and it's not obvious (at least as I understand things) that every state ought to have a separate church.

I think you have to consider the complexity of issues like this, though. For instance, when you say "national boundaries", do you really mean "national", or do you mean "state"? The nation-state is a very recent development, and it's not obvious (at least as I understand things) that every state ought to have a separate church.

Okay, you have a point there. But you would have to look at cultures and not just geography and whether the former political and military dominance over a region that is now a nation-state makes the former patriarchate a pastoral and evangelistic liability.

Okay, you have a point there. But you would have to look at cultures and not just geography and whether the former political and military dominance over a region that is now a nation-state makes the former patriarchate a pastoral and evangelistic liability.

It is more complicated than that. For instance many Russians live in Ukraine and other "non-Russian" Soviet successor states. The way how the populations are distributed doesn't allow for any simple partition of ecclesiastical authority. Regardless, that would only be treating the symptom and not the illness. The root of the problem in Estonia is the tiny group of ethnic Estonian parishes that want their ecclesiastical independence and a huge Russian population in Estonia that is sitting around pouting that they are no longer in power.

To the typical cradle Orthodox person there is often a strong relationship between ethnic and religious identity that doesn't exist in the mind of the American convert who simply sees religion as an abstract ideology than can be freely accepted or discarded. Unless that changes in the old world, the likelihood of things that converts hold to be important (multi-ethnic jurisdictions, a removal of the church from ethno-politics, reduction of abortions etc.) being implemented is rather low.

Why?Do you have any idea how many times the maps of Europe and the Middle East have been redrawn in the past century to include people of "similar cultures" and exclude those of "different culture"? Should the Church in Constantinople be "Greek", "Turkish", "Kurdish", or "none of the above"? Should there have been a Church of East Germany and a Church of West Germany for 4o years post WWII which then reunited? Should the Antiochian Orthodox Church no longer exist since it isn't based in Antioch any more? Should the Assyrian Church of the East no longer exist because Assyria no longer exist? Should the Church in Austria have become "The Church of Greater Germany" at the 1938 anschluss?Simplistic answers cultivate the stupidity that places the world in the mess it finds itself in today.

« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 11:03:57 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Why?Do you have any idea how many times the maps of Europe and the Middle East have been redrawn in the past century to include people of "similar cultures" and exclude those of "different culture"? Should the Church in Constantinople be "Greek", "Turkish", "Kurdish", or "none of the above"? Should there have been a Church of East Germany and a Church of West Germany for 4o years post WWII which then reunited? Should the Antiochian Orthodox Church no longer exist since it isn't based in Antioch any more? Should the Assyrian Church of the East no longer exist because Assyria no longer exist? Should the Church in Austria have become "The Church of Greater Germany" at the 1938 anschluss?Simplistic answers cultivate the stupidity that places the world in the mess it finds itself in today.

Generally, Orthodox jurisdictions are organized along some historical grid of geogrpaphic, national boundary. There are and have been exceptions and historic jurisdictions that have survived (while others have gone extinct) should be recognized and honored.

And I am certainly not saying that with every contemporary alteration of borders we should create new or eliminate old jurisdictions

Also, I am quite skeptical of the nationalistic/imperialistic motives eminating from Moscow, regardless of the source (even religious)

I am quite skeptical of the nationalistic/imperialistic motives eminating from Moscow, regardless of the source (even religious)

As am I, but neither side is free of this. The creation of an Estonian jurisdiction not under Moscow is just as politically important for ethnic Estonians as is the presence of a Moscow backed jurisdiction for ethnic Russians in Estonia and for Russian hegemonic claims in the Baltic. This concept of "canonical" and "non-canonical" autonomous / autocephalous jurisdictions (for instance Macedonia, the Bulgarian church from 1870-1945 etc) or the case of overlapping canonical jurisdictions (Serbian church in Timisoara, Romania etc.) is really the same principle as linguists often cite - "A language is a dialect with an army and navy." Until Orthodox Christians reach the point that they refuse to allow their priests to preach nationalism and let their churches be used as political tools, Orthodoxy will continue to be as insignificant as any other worldly ideology.

But while an independent State often possess its own autocephalous Church, ecclesiastical divisions do not necessarily coincide with State boundaries. The territories of the four ancient Patriarchates fall politically into several different countries. The Orthodox Church is a federation of local, but not in every case national, Churches. IT DOES NOT HAVE AS ITS BASIS THE POLITICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE STATE CHURCH. The Orthodox Church, New Edition, Bishop Kallistos Ware at pg. 7.

I see. Since you already have your little nationalist church, you don't see why anyone else should get theirs.

And yet you make an assumption I would like to keep it that way? I would have no problem if the SOC lost its autocephaly, aslong as I can go to a liturgy and understand most of it. You've really got to give up the thought that all Serbs are ultra-nationalists. I've been to a Romanian, Greek and Russian liturgy, and I loved it, except I would obviously love to actually understand whats being said. I actually want for a more unified Orthodox Church, not an autonomous/autocephalous church for every boundery you cross, thats stupid and thats why we are so weak, because we are divided.

BTW I find it ignorant and insulting to me that you would say that, thinking I would take such a hypocritical position, "claiming unity of all Orthodox Churches...but no no! the Serbian Church must stay independent!"

« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 05:08:13 PM by Sloga »

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

Poignant observation, SS99. With 200+ countries now in the UN, what do we want...200 local synods. I hope not.

Since the Orthodox church is a moribund institution that has a presence is a small group of Eurasian nations and their diaspora communities (and in general, very few exceptions to this and very little external growth), local synods in 200 nations would hardly seem logical.

And yet you make an assumption I would like to keep it that way? I would have no problem if the SOC lost its autocephaly, aslong as I can go to a liturgy and understand most of it. You've really got to give up the thought that all Serbs are ultra-nationalists. I've been to a Romanian, Greek and Russian liturgy, and I loved it, except I would obviously love to actually understand whats being said. I actually want for a more unified Orthodox Church, not an autonomous/autocephalous church for every boundery you cross, thats stupid and thats why we are so weak, because we are divided.

It is lofty and all for you to claim you'd gladly give up the autocephalous status of the SOC for the sake of Orthodox unity, but in reality that means nothing since the status of the SOC (except in Macedonia and Montenegro) isn't up for grabs and even if it were it isn't up to you. So my general observation that those of us who are in "canonical" or "official" Orthodox churches are in a very cozy place to condemn the exact same actions and methodology the founders of our (and even for those of us in the EP this hold partially true) churches.

But while an independent State often possess its own autocephalous Church, ecclesiastical divisions do not necessarily coincide with State boundaries. The territories of the four ancient Patriarchates fall politically into several different countries. The Orthodox Church is a federation of local, but not in every case national, Churches. IT DOES NOT HAVE AS ITS BASIS THE POLITICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE STATE CHURCH. The Orthodox Church, New Edition, Bishop Kallistos Ware at pg. 7.

It is hardly as if the current divisions of churches in Orthodoxy is so sacrosanct. Macedonia being added to Serbian jurisdiction is just a piece of war booty (as were many other swaps of jurisdiction). The whole movement for national churches, which by and large is the rule within Orthodoxy despite your claims to the contrary, has its roots in German romanticism - fittingly ironic. This is hardly the ideal of Orthodoxy.

It is lofty and all for you to claim you'd gladly give up the autocephalous status of the SOC for the sake of Orthodox unity, but in reality that means nothing since the status of the SOC (except in Macedonia and Montenegro) isn't up for grabs and even if it were it isn't up to you. So my general observation that those of us who are in "canonical" or "official" Orthodox churches are in a very cozy place to condemn the exact same actions and methodology the founders of our (and even for those of us in the EP this hold partially true) churches.

Why is it that you tend to say one thing, then when someone responds to your accusation you try and manipulate it into something else?

Quote

I see. Since you already have your little nationalist church, you don't see why anyone else should get theirs.

I told you, I dont care for the autocephaly. I told you, whats more important to me is Orthodox unity. You accused me of being a hypocrite, becuause you assumed I would never in a million years, as a "nationalist serb", allow for the SOC to lose its autocephalous status. Obviously your wrong. Obviously it's just that I'm against further disintegration and disunity of Orthodoxy. But instead of apologizing, you then go on and nearly ridicule me for saying I would not care if the SOC's status is taken away by saying -

Quote

but in reality that means nothing since the status of the SOC (except in Macedonia and Montenegro) isn't up for grabs and even if it were it isn't up to you.

Duh, I dont think I have the power to do that, but I was telling you what I personally felt, not what I said I would do.

My mom brought me back from Serbia a brojanica that is red-blue-white. I dont wear it. I dont feel comfortable mixing nationalism much with my faith. I already know what your going to say, but whether you believe me or not (I dont really care), I really avoid, and usually succeed mixing my religion with my patriotism on an every day basis, unlike many other people I know. If I had to chose between the two, I would obviously chose religion, but God is not making me chose between the two, and right now nationalism/patriotism is essential to the survival of the Serbian people (which I'm sure you disagree, but no point in arguing with me there), so I will adhere to both, but seperately.

So my point to you Nektarios, is that you have a major issue with people that display any type of Nationalism, which I can sort of understand. Ultra-nationalism that involves xenophobia is obviously a sin, God does not see skin colour, race...etc. And even moderate Nationalism has its drawbacks, such as it obivously has within the Orthodox religion. But it seems to me, you dislike the more older autocephalous churches because theyve become nothing but a "weapon of nationalism", but what you really fail to understand Orthodoxy will never be perfect, there will always be false followers and people who use Orthodoxy merely for political reasons. It is our duty to try and keep it to a minimum, and the formation of things such as the MOC2 (Montenegrin and FYR Macedonian) churches is PURELY political/nationalistic and nothing else.

The concept of nationalism differs with every nationality, and as hard as you try, you simply can't understand it completely. I'm sure you will agree that Polish/American nationalism exists on a different level and different reason than let's say Serbian or Greek nationalism.

You seem to forget, nationalism is responsible for the survival of Orthodoxy in many places, such as the Balkans .

« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 01:11:04 PM by Sloga »

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

Why is it that you tend to say one thing, then when someone responds to your accusation you try and manipulate it into something else?

In English it is very common to use the second person to form an impersonal statement (like using the third person singular and adding "se" to a non-reflexive verb in Serbian). I chose to use the second person construction precisely because it is a bit ambiguous. And I stand by what I said, it is cozy for you, a member of a nationalist church, to condemn those who aren't their own nationalist churches.

Quote

Obviously it's just that I'm against further disintegration and disunity of Orthodoxy.

To stop it as this point is merely arbitrary.

Quote

So my point to you Nektarios, is that you have a major issue with people that display any type of Nationalism, which I can sort of understand. Ultra-nationalism that involves xenophobia is obviously a sin, God does not see skin colour, race...etc. And even moderate Nationalism has its drawbacks, such as it obivously has within the Orthodox religion. But it seems to me, you dislike the more older autocephalous churches because theyve become nothing but a "weapon of nationalism", but what you really fail to understand Orthodoxy will never be perfect, there will always be false followers and people who use Orthodoxy merely for political reasons. It is our duty to try and keep it to a minimum, and the formation of things such as the MOC2 (Montenegrin and FYR Macedonian) churches is PURELY political/nationalistic and nothing else.

Actually the nationalism that I oppose is the intellectual / literary movement. Nationalism need not be violent nor "extremist" rather it is just a set of myths in a greater national mythology. A good example of what I am talking about is Norman Davies's critique of the methodology of Polish historians in the introduction his book God's Playground. The great irony is that the modern concepts of nationalism are relatively new in Orthodox lands and are simply an extension of German Romanticism (this is even true of the Russian Slavophiles). So here I am attacking a Western idea that has taken root in Orthodoxy, and the vast majority of people who disagree with this are cradle Orthodox.

The reason why I don't agree with your approach in condemning the Montenegrin and Macedonian Orthodox Churches is that the creation of all of the daughter churches of Constantinople (and I would add that even the title and position of the patriarchate is inherently political). So in condemning Montenegro and Macedonia, one is also condemning pretty much every single Orthodox body.

Quote

The concept of nationalism differs with every nationality, and as hard as you try, you simply can't understand it completely. I'm sure you will agree that Polish/American nationalism exists on a different level and different reason than let's say Serbian or Greek nationalism.

While the particulars vary greatly, the actual mechanisms through which national mythology is created and the creation of a national consciousnesses occurs is remarkably similar. This is pretty much a basic part of political science.

Quote

You seem to forget, nationalism is responsible for the survival of Orthodoxy in many places, such as the Balkans .

That is a nice romantic notion; it is too bad that it isn't true. Nationalism only really established itself towards the end of the Ottoman period in the Balkans. It was after all, the conflicting nationalism of the Young Turks and the Megali Idea that led to the near eradication of Orthodoxy from Anatolia. When nationalism did finally establish itself by the 19th Century, it was more a tool of the Porte to divide and conquer than any sort of Orthodox movement of self preservation.

That is a nice romantic notion; it is too bad that it isn't true. Nationalism only really established itself towards the end of the Ottoman period in the Balkans. It was after all, the conflicting nationalism of the Young Turks and the Megali Idea that led to the near eradication of Orthodoxy from Anatolia. When nationalism did finally establish itself by the 19th Century, it was more a tool of the Porte to divide and conquer than any sort of Orthodox movement of self preservation.

Thank you for the edifiying post. Would you also make a comment concerning racialism/tribalism?

It seems this idea expresses itself clearly in the Old Testament while the New Testament and Orthodoxy seems to bring this idea of God's "chosen people" outside of the ethnic tribal construct to one "not by blood but by spirit" making up - as the prayers put it - the "Christian race".

I can't help but to point out the obvious hypocrisy the Nektarios continuously puts forward here.

Nationalism is bad, when done by Serbs, Greeks and Ruskis, but American "Patriotism" is a requisite for all "true Americans".

Just find one of the topics where someone is purportedly criticizing America and read the reaction of Nektarios. Nationalism cloaked with the veil of "Patriotism". Funny.

I would really like to know where I had said that "American 'Patriotism' is a requisite for all "true Americans'." Or for that matter, where I have ever endorsed a patriotism of America, right or wrong.

There are some threads in the politics boards where a superficial reading could lend to that conclusion, but what I was really doing was being critical of far left scapegoating of all the world's problems on the US or President Bush in particular. The reason was doing so was not at of any great love for the Bush administration, but because I believe that most of the recent problems are not endemic to his administration and the culmination of decades of bad policy. Hardly the picture you are painting.

The other great difference is that I don't claim divine sanction for my political views. The reason I even post in political topics on a religious board is because there is a political forum, and I enjoy a good round of political debate. That doesn't mean that I think my views are God endorsed nor that someone who disagrees with me is opposed to the church. I am, and have consistently, stated my opposition to the mixing of politics and religion for that very reason.

If you do drudge up some old post of me saying something to the contrary, I will gladly apologize and recant it. There are several posters with whom I communicate fairly frequently, and if they are so incline, I believe they would say the above is an accurate statement of my political views.

This topic is re-opened. I expect all participants to adhere to forum rules on personal attacks.

This subject involves historical elements which include geo-political aspects. Despite our proscription of 'politics' in public boards, I will allow such political elements that are factual, but not opinion. For example: if one wishes to point out an analogy between the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the breakup of the USSR and how these events related to the Church, fine. Both instances are now in the past. Should discussion take on further current politics, this thread will go to the Private boards.

Αριστοκλής

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Someone needs to devise a strategy for resolving the differences between Alexei and Bartholomew. Their disagreements are so divisive to the progress of our Orthodoxy. This summer the problems seem to have escalated. Alexei's letter to the EU, advising that Bartholomew is not the leader of the Orthodox Church, when the EU was supporting the Ecumenical Patriarchate against the persecution of the Turkish government, was especially embarrassing. Bartholomew may be aggressive, but the "Holy Churches of God" need a coordinator, a focal point for our Church. Somehow, Alexei needs to understand his disputes should be communicated privately, within Church forums; not to the greater world community.-BWT

Someone needs to devise a strategy for resolving the differences between Alexei and Bartholomew. Their disagreements are so divisive to the progress of our Orthodoxy. This summer the problems seem to have escalated. Alexei's letter to the EU, advising that Bartholomew is not the leader of the Orthodox Church, when the EU was supporting the Ecumenical Patriarchate against the persecution of the Turkish government, was especially embarrassing. Bartholomew may be aggressive, but the "Holy Churches of God" need a coordinator, a focal point for our Church. Somehow, Alexei needs to understand his disputes should be communicated privately, within Church forums; not to the greater world community.-BWT

While the MP's words this summer may be regrettable, I think he brings up an important point that the Church needs to address publicly. We may indeed need a centralized figurehead authority that we can all respect as "first among equals", but there need to be canonical limits to his authority. For instance, I know quite well that one of the major bones of contention between Moscow and Constantinople is the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which Constantinople has used since the 1920's to claim authority over all Orthodox churches outside of the territories of the established patriarchates. Moscow sees the actions carried out by the EP in the name of this interpretation as a series of violations of other canons prohibiting the interference of one bishop in the affairs of a church outside his defined territory, e.g., Constantinople's apparent interference in the internal affairs of Russian churches in Western Europe and establishment of a rival jurisdiction in America.